1 | P a g e

The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Results Based Management in Kenya’s Civil Service.

Gachunga , H. and Ndege , F.

2 | P a g e

Vol. 1 (1), pp1-32, April 17, 2014, www.strategicjournals.com, ©strategic Journals

The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Results Based Management in Kenya’s Civil Service.

Gachunga, H. Senior Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), Nairobi Kenya

Ndege, F. Senior Officer in Kenyan Parastatal

Accepted April 17, 2014

Abstract Transformational leadership is that which facilitates a redefinition of a people’s mission and vision, a renewal of their commitment and the restructuring of their systems for goal accomplishment. The Public Service Reform and Development Secretariat in Kenya seeks to transform and to build the institutional and leadership capacity in the Public Service from a process orientation to a results management culture. This study sought to understand the effects that transformational leadership had on results based management in Kenya’s civil service. The study investigated whether individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring of employees by leaders had an effect on RBM. The population of study was the staff in Kenya’s ministries that are involved in the performance contracting process. Stratified Random Sampling was used to select the sample respondents. Questionnaires were used on a “drop and pick later” basis, to collect data that was processed and analyzed descriptively and presented through tables and percentages. The findings of the research indicated that the level of results based management in the government ministries; the level of individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring; and the level of employee understanding of performance expectation in the Government Departments was low. Also, the level of employee participation in decision making and the level of employee intellectual stimulation in the Government Departments was moderate. These findings indicated that there was a need for supervisors to focus on coaching and mentoring individuals under their charge for results based management to be achieved in government ministries. Employees in government departments did not seem to understand their roles clearly, making it difficult for them to know what was to be achieved. The findings showed a cause for concern and need for more focus on the leadership and supervisory practices of managers in Government Departments. It was recommended that the government puts in place measures to ensure the leaders appointed to head government departments were transformational to ensure achievement of results based management for provision of better services to the citizens, improved accountability for resources and restoration of citizens’ faith in the management of government affairs and concerted efforts to train leadership are made to go hand in hand with institutional reforms.

Key Words: Transformational Leadership, Result based Management

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION Bass defined leadership as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent (Bass, 1990). This definition is similar to Northouse (2007) who defines leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. The pace of change confronting organizations today has resulted in calls for more adaptive, flexible leadership. Adaptive leaders work more effectively in rapidly changing environments by helping to make sense of the challenges confronted by both leaders and followers and then appropriately responding to those challenges. Adaptive leaders work with their followers to generate creative solutions to complex problems, while also developing them to handle a broader range of leadership responsibilities (Bennis, 2001). Bass (1985) labeled the type of adaptive leadership described above transformational. It is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. Hence, transformational leadership must be grounded in moral foundations. (Leithwood, as cited in Cashin et al., 2000, p.1) Transformational leaders elevate people from low levels of need, focused on survival (following Maslow’s hierarchy), to higher levels (Kelly, 2003; Yukl, 1989). They may also motivate followers to transcend their own interests for some other collective purpose (Feinberg, Ostroff & Burke, 2005, p. 471) but typically help followers satisfy as many of their individual human needs as possible, appealing notably to higher order needs (e.g. to love, to learn, and to leave a legacy). Transformational leaders are said to engender trust, admiration, loyalty and respect amongst

their followers (Barbuto, 2005, p. 28). This form of leadership requires that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example. In effect, transformational leaders emphasize the actualization of followers (Rice, 1993). Transformational leadership is also based on self-reflective changing of values and beliefs by the leader and their followers. From this emerges a key characteristic of transformational leadership. It is said to involve leaders and followers raising one another’s achievements, morality and motivations to levels that might otherwise have been impossible (Barnett, 2003; Chekwa, 2001; Crawford, Gould & Scott, 2003; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2004). Transformational leadership is closely linked to follower performance. All organizations, projects, disciplines and sectors are now facing increasing demands for results-based management and pressure to 'manage for outcomes'. As a consequence, many people in many settings are putting in place a range of different systems in an attempt to be more results-based and outcomes-focused. (Bass,1998). Results-based management (RBM) is a participatory and team-based approach to programme planning and focuses on achieving defined and measurable results and impact. It is designed to improve programme delivery and strengthen management effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. RBM helps moving the focus of programming, managing and decision-making from inputs and processes to the objectives to be met ( UNESCO, 2008). Results-based management is a management approach that integrates strategy, people, resources, processes and measurements to improve decision-making, transparency, and

4 | P a g e

accountability. The approach focuses on achieving outcomes, learning and changing, measuring, and reporting on results. According to Peter Drucker (1955) who introduced Management By Objectives (MBO) for the first time, he states that a RBM approach aims at improving program management effectiveness and accountability and achieving measurable results. He developed the concept of MBO whose principles were cascading of organizational goals and objectives; Specific objectives for each member of the Organization; Participative decision-making; explicit time period; and Performance evaluation and feedback. RBM is a broad management strategy aimed at changing the way institutions operate, by improving performance, programmatic focus and delivery. It reflects the way an organization applies processes and resources to achieve interventions targeted at commonly agreed results. The Kenyan public service (ministries, parastatals and extra-ministerial departments) has always been the tool available to governments for the implementation of developmental goals and objectives. It is seen as a pivot for growth of economies. It is responsible for the creation of an appropriate and conducive environment in which all sectors of the economy can perform optimally, and it is this catalytic role of the public service that propelled governments all over the world to search continuously for better ways to deliver their services. As part of public service management and development, the government of Kenya has rolled out a Results Based Management system (RBM) in the public sector. A Results Office within the Public Sector Reform & Development Secretariat (PSR&DS) has been established to coordinate RBM implementation; and will oversee the development of performance management and integrated performance appraisal system,

rapid results initiatives, performance audit, RBM monitoring and evaluation system and all the other accountability processes anticipated as part of RBM approach; setting the performance targets and performance contracting for Ministries, State Corporations, Regional and Local Governments. The policy priorities for the PSR & DS are to develop and sustain capacity for transformative leadership and management of results for Kenyans.; Introduce and institutionalize RBM in the public service; Build resource capacity for achieving 'Results for Kenyans'; Deepen public sector reforms; and Coordinate highly skilled Human Resource base in the public service. The PSR & DS seeks to transform the Public Service from a process orientation to a results management culture to facilitate the achievement of the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS) and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It also seeks to build the institutional and leadership capacity for a results based management culture in the public service. The key outputs from the PSR&DS secretariat are improved development partner relations; Enhanced programme focus and input into design and development; Appropriate procedures followed on use of the Basket Funds; Effective support on management of retreats/workshops and other key forums; Input to a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; Input to other strategies and processes required for the programme; Best Practices and Lessons Learnt identified, documented and disseminated (UNDP, 2007/2008).

Statement of the problem

Poor leadership and lack of clearly defined performance targets for the ministries as a whole and for the individual departments within Kenya’s public service in the past contributed to deficiency in service delivery, excessive discretion in government, lack of capacity building as well as transparent control systems. This consequently led to the problems of lack of professionalism,

5 | P a g e

widespread corruption and gross abuse of public office thereby undermining economic development as well as the enjoyment of rights by Kenyans. (UNDP, 2006) This has led the government of Kenya to establish the public sector management reforms that are a central feature of economic policy reform programmes. The performance of such reforms in Kenya remains hindered by a myriad of factors including lack of efficiency, lack of accountability, ineffective management practices, and corruption. (Public service reform and development secretariat donor/GOK consultative meeting Report April, 2005). RBM is largely dependent on transformational leadership, which the Kenya government is introducing through the Public Sector Reform Programme. This study thus sought to establish the effects that transformational leadership has had on Results Based Management in the civil service, focusing on the main strides made since its introduction. Research Objectives This research aimed at examining the effects of transformational leadership on Results Based Management in Kenya’s civil service. Specifically the objectives of the research were to establish whether coaching and mentoring of employees as well as employee participation had an effect on result based management. Research Questions The study set out to establish the following:

i) Does transformational leadership have an effect on result based management in the public sector in Kenya?

ii) To what extent does coaching and mentoring of employees have an influence on result based management?

iii) How does employee participation influence result based management practices in the civil service in Kenya?

Theoretical Foundations This study is based on two theories : namely Burn’s Transformational Leadersip Theory and Bass and Avolio’s Transformational Leadership Theory. Burns' Transformational Leadership Theory Burns (1978) defined transformational leadership as a process where leaders and followers engage in a mutual process of 'raising one another to higher levels of morality and motivation. Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher ideals and values of followers. In doing so, they may model the values themselves and use charismatic methods to attract people to the values and to the leader. Burns' view is that an appeal to social values thus encourages people to collaborate, rather than working as individuals (and potentially competitively with one another). He also views transformational leadership as an ongoing process. Using social and spiritual values as a motivational lever is very powerful as they are both hard to deny and also give people an uplifting sense of being connected to a higher purpose, thus playing to the need for a sense of meaning and identity. Burns (1978) identified two other broader categories of leaders - amoral and moral leaders. For Burns, the amoral leader (a leader without any moral character) was not really a true leader at all. They were primarily interested in satisfying their own needs, regardless if this need satisfied those being led. To be a leader, a person must be able to satisfy the motives of others. That is, the leader must find common ground with their followers and thereby help motivate them to action. Moral Transformational Leaders as described by Burns (1978) are those whose behaviors are consistent and aligned with the needs and values of the followers. Other characteristics of the moral leader include: Assuming responsibility for their actions and commitments to their followers; They keep the promises made by personally leading the change; Understanding that alternatives exist and willingness to switch direction if needed; and Power is given to the moral leader based

6 | P a g e

on mutual needs. Burns believed that moral leaders were diametrically opposed to amoral leaders and that only moral leaders had a higher purpose in life. In the Burns model of transformational leadership, he went on to describe several different types of transformational leaders:- Intellectuals - a leader devoted to seeing ideas and values that transcend the practical needs of all. With an intellectual leader, there is a higher moral purpose and vision that can transform society. Reformers - a leader of reform movements that requires the participation of large numbers of followers to achieve. Reform leaders can transform part of society to realize a higher standard of moral principles. Revolutionaries - a leader that may ask followers for the "ultimate sacrifice" for the greater good of all. While a reform leader may work towards improving one aspect of society, the revolutionary leader asks for changes to the whole of society; and Charismatic (Hero) - perhaps the ultimate form of a transformational leader. The charismatic leader is viewed as a hero among followers. (Burns, 1978) Bernard M. Bass & Bruce J. Avolio Transformational Leadership Theory Bass (1998) research stems from the inadequacies and deficiencies that were documented from Burns’ earlier work. He has found evidence that transformational leadership was particularly powerful and had the foundation to move followers beyond what was expected. He believes that transformational leaders did more than set up exchanges and agreements and that leaders behave in certain ways in order to raise the level of commitment from followers. Transformational leadership is classified as the Full Range of Leadership (FRL) and this permits further exploration into the effects of its application to specific conditions (Bass, 1998). Bass developed new ways to identify successful and effective leaders. His work uses

an empirically confirmed and logically supported factor analytic framework of transformational and transactional leadership, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), an instrument intended to measure transformational and transactional leader behaviours. (Stone, Russell & Patterson (2003). Bass and his colleagues identify four components of transformational leadership as being exhibited by effective transformational leaders. Conceptualization of the Study Individualized consideration, coaching and

mentoring

This involves responding to the specific, unique needs of followers to ensure they are included in the transformation process of the organization (Simic, 1998, p. 52). People are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge (Shin & Zhou, 2003, p. 704) and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Chekwa, 2001, p. 5; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might take expression, for example, through expressing words of thanks or praise, fair workload distributions, and individualized career counseling, mentoring and professional development activities. Besides having an overarching view of the organization and its trajectory, the transformational leader must also comprehend those things that motivate followers individually (Simic, 2003, p. 52). Both coaching and mentoring are processes that enable both individual and the organization to achieve their full potential. Coaching is a process that enables learning and development to occur and thus performance to improve. To be successful, a coach requires knowledge and understanding of the process as well as the variety of styles, skills and techniques that are appropriate to the context in which the coaching takes place Parsloe (1999). On the other hand, mentoring is help by one person to another in making

7 | P a g e

significant transitions in knowledge, work or thinking (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 1999) . Defined Employee Performance Expectations Setting performance expectations is the foundation and first step in performance management. Performance management is an ongoing, continuous process of communicating and clarifying job responsibilities, priorities and performance expectations in order to ensure mutual understanding between supervisor and employee. It is a philosophy which values and encourages employee development through a style of management which provides frequent feedback and fosters teamwork. It emphasizes communication and focuses on adding value to the organization by promoting improved job performance and encouraging skill development. Performance Management involves, defining performance standards, and documenting, evaluating and discussing performance with each employee. By setting performance expectations first, the employee knows what is expected and the supervisor has specific performance criteria to measure quality and productivity. It also provides a fair basis for appraising performance. Identify the Key responsibilities that make up the job. Key responsibilities are the main components or key results of the job. http://www.indiana.edu/~uhrs/training/performance_management/intro.htm (Retrieved 2nd April 2011) Employee participation in decision making Employee participation is the process whereby employees are involved in decision making processes, rather than simply acting on orders. Employee participation is part of a process of empowerment in the workplace. Empowerment involves decentralizing power within the organization to individual decision makers further down the line. Team working is a key part of the empowerment process. Team members are encouraged to make decisions for themselves in line with guidelines and frameworks established in self managing teams. [http://www.thetimes100.co.uk (Retrieved, 19thApril2011)]

Employee participation is in part a response to the quality movement within organizations. Individual employees are encouraged to take responsibility for quality in terms of carrying out activities, which meet the requirements of their customers. The internal customer is someone within the organization that receives the 'product of service' provided by their 'supplier' within the organization. External customers are buyers and users outside of the organization. Employee participation is also part of the move towards human resource development in modern organizations. Employees are trusted to make decisions for themselves and the organization. This is a key motivational tool. Employee participation is also referred to as employee involvement (EI) [http://www.thetimes100.co.uk (Retrieved, 19th April 2011)]. Intellectual stimulation This involves arousing and changing followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52). The leader creates a challenge for followers in order that they think, about what they are doing. Also, this factor is recognized as a tool to generate learning organization. Overall, intellectual stimulation consists of reinvestigating basic assumptions and questioning them, looking for various perspectives when resolving the problems, forcing others to look at the problem from different views, encouraging nontraditional thinking to address traditional problems and encouraging revising the ideas that are not questioned yet (Moghali, Ali Reza,2002). Together, the main dimensions of transformational leadership are

8 | P a g e

interdependent; they must co-exist; and they are held to have an additive effect that yields performance beyond expectations (Gellis, 2001; Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002; Kelly, 2003).

Independent Variables Dependent

Variable

Figure 1: Study’s Conceptual Framework

Empirical Literature Review

The morality of transformational leadership has been questioned, especially by organizational development consultants (Griffin, 2003). Transformational leadership has potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on

power and manipulation. Moreover, some followers may have dependent characters and form strong and unfortunate bonds with their leaders (Stone, Russell and Patterson, 2003, p. 4). Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends. Yukl (1989, p. 226) describes this as the “dark side of charisma” and goes on to note (p. 227) that for every example of a positive transformational leader demonstrating charismatic qualities (e.g., Mohandas [Mahatma] Gandhi), there is an equally negative example (e.g., Charles Manson). To be truly transformational, leadership must have moral foundations (Griffin, 2003). Thus: “To bring about change, authentic transformational leadership fosters the modal values of honesty, loyalty, and fairness, as well as the end values of justice, equality, and human rights.”(Griffin, 2003, p. 8. Emphasis added). There seems to be an emerging orthodoxy in the literature favoring a blend of transactional and transformational leadership (e.g., Bryant, 2003; Gellis, 2001; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). However, Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) propose an extension to both through what they call ‘transcendental leadership’. Their model suggests three structural levels of leadership accomplishment, these being transactional, transformational, and transcendental, and they suggest that a leader’s development along three dimensions of spirituality – consciousness (mind), moral character (heart) and faith (soul) – is associated with these levels of leadership accomplishment. They argue for the need to society and organizations to recognize the need for and embrace spirituality. Traditional leadership theories are said to concentrate on external manifestations of leadership but the model proposed by Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) indicates that leadership is best understood by adding consideration of the

R

ESU

LTS

BA

SED

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

TRANSFORMATIONAL

LEADERSHIP

Individualized consideration,

coaching and mentoring

Defined employee performance expectations

Employee participation

Intellectual stimulation

9 | P a g e

leader’s internal components. While their very new theory is yet to be tested empirically, their intent is to help bring spirituality out of the ‘closet’ (p. 29) and to weave it coherently into new understandings of leadership.

Research Gaps

There is an argument that transformational leadership is facilitative of change because it contributes to organizational improvement, effectiveness and institutional culture (Barnett, McCormick & Conners, 2001). According to Flint (2002) fostering a culture of results is a significant challenge for an organization, which has led to non-realization of results based management practices. There are a number of factors that are needed to build such a “culture of inquiry” that are lacking in many organizations. They include demonstrated senior management leadership and commitment; Informed demand for results information; supportive organizational systems, practices and procedures; a results-oriented accountability regime; a capacity to learn and adapt; and results measurement and management capacity (Auditor General of Canada (2000) ; OECD-DAC (2006) & Botcheva , White, Huffman LC2002, 23(4): 421-434)). The importance of leadership to drive results based management forward cannot be underestimated. A strong personal commitment should be supported by a single simple and consistent message on development of systems to track, measure and report managers’ success at their functions; and a clear perceived link between successful resources utilization and organizational advancement. This study thus sought to establish the effects of transformational leadership on results based management in Kenya’s civil service. Research Design and Methodology This study adopted descriptive research design Descriptive research is a scientific method of investigation in which data is collected and analyzed in order to describe the current conditions, terms or relationships

concerning a problem (Mugenda and Mugenda 1999). A Survey of specified state corporations was conducted because the researcher wanted to collect data on phenomena that could not be directly observed. In the survey research, the researcher selected a sample of respondents from a population and administered a standardized questionnaire that was completed by the people being surveyed. (Alreck & Settle, 1995). The main way of collecting information was by asking people structured and predefined questions. Population Target population as defined by Borg and Gall (1996) is a universal set of the study of all members of real or hypothetical set of people, events or objects to which an investigator wishes to generalize the result. The target population of study was 606 employees involved in the performance contracting process directly in the various ministries mentioned below. Those involved were identified through Human Resource departments. Data for the study was collected from fifteen (15) ministries. The data collection was done by “drop and pick up later method”, where the questionnaires were left with the respondents and collected at a later date. Sampling Technique Sampling is that part of statistical practice concerned with the selection of a subset of individuals from within a population to yield some knowledge about the whole population, especially for the purposes of making predictions based on statistical inference. (Adèr, Mellenbergh, & Hand, 2008) . Stratified Random Sampling was used for the study. It involved dividing the population into homogeneous subgroups (based on their performance in the 2009/2010 performance evaluation) . Out of the forty five (45) ministries in Kenya’s civil service in 2011, stratified random sampling was done. A random sample of eight (8) ministries was selected from those whose performance was ranked “Very Good” and the

10 | P a g e

other seven (7) randomly selected from those whose performance was “Good”. There were no ministries whose performance was ranked as “Excellent, “Fair” or “Poor”. Stratified sampling was selected for a number of reasons: First, it assured that the overall population as well as small minority groups were represented. Second, stratified random sampling generally had more statistical precision than simple random sampling Sample size According to Mugenda & Mugenda (1999), a sample size of thirty (30%) percent is considered representative. Therefore, the researcher used simple random sampling and got 186 (One hundred and eighty six) respondents as the sample size. The response rate was 58%, since the researcher received back 108 of the 186 questionnaires distributed. The respondents were drawn from middle level management and some from the top management. Data Collection Instrument A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection in this study. It had two sections A and B. Section A focused on the background information of respondents which included; sex, age, level of education, job grade, length of service in their current position, length of service in the organization and number of employees under their supervision. Section B had items that focused on results based management, individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring of employees, employee performance expectations and participation in decision making, and provision of employees with intellectual stimulation. Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instrument The questionnaire was evaluated by researchers and experts in human resource to ascertain that the items addressed the subject that was the focus of this study. The Reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using the coefficient alpha as proposed by Cronbach (1951) in Hopkins (1998). The coefficient alpha generates a coefficient of

internal consistency ranging from 0 to 1. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), an alpha coefficient of 0.7 and above is considered suitable to make accurate inferences. Therefore the acceptable level of reliability for the questionnaire was set at 0.7 and above. In this study, the questionnaire attained a reliability of 0.94 (N=80) which was above the threshold that was set for this study. Therefore the data collected using the instrument was reliable.

Data Analysis

Out of the 186 questionnaires distributed 108 were returned which is a response rate of 58%. The gender distribution was male at 58.3% while the female were 39.8% . The age distribution of the respondents ranged from 20-29 years ( 17.6%), 30-49 years (60.2%) , 50-59 years ( 15.7%) and 6.5% did not indicate their gender. The respondents had the following educational background : PHd ( 0.9%), Masters ( 17.6%), Undergraduate ( 45.4%) Diploma ( 18.5%) and Secondary School Certificate holders with no other qualification were ( 10.2%). Therefore (82.4%) of the respondents had a post secondary qualification. The survey also identified the length of service of the respondents as follows :between 1 to 5 years, (50%), 6 to 10 years (19.4%), 11 to 15 years (9.3%), 16 to 20 years ( 4.6%), 21-25 years (6.5 %) , 26 to 30 years ( 2.8%). Some respondents ( 7.4%) did not indicate their length of service. Analysis Variable By Variable

11 | P a g e

a) Effect of individualized consideration,

coaching and mentoring of employees

on Results Based Management

Results Based Management

The respondents were expected to indicate the level of results based management in their organizations. Results Based Management was measured using 11 items in the questionnaire that focused on strategic planning, performance based budgeting, alignment of organization objectives to activities, and linkage between activities, outputs and outcomes. The respondents rated the 11 items on a five point rating scale of: strongly agree (5); agree (4); not sure (3); disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). The responses for each respondent were computed to obtain a results based management score which was expressed as a percentage. A high score indicated a high level of results based management in the organization while a low score indicated a low level of result based management. Table 1 shows the benchmarks that were used for interpretation of the results based management score:

Table 1: Benchmarks for interpretation of results based management score

Score range Interpretation

75-100 High level of results based

management

50-74 Medium level of results

based management

>50 Low level of results based

management

The data that was obtained was used to compute the mean results based management score and the results showed the mean to be 47.6 , standard error 1.5, standard deviation 14.5 and total number who responded accurately were N=98. These results indicate that the level of result based

management in government ministries was low based on the standards of interpretation that were set for this study shown in Table 1.

Table 2 Employee Perceptions of Result based management practices

Level Score range (%)

f %

High 75-100 5 5.1

Medium 50-74 35 35.7

Low >50 58 59.2

Total 98 100.0

The results in Table 2 show that majority of the respondents (59.2%) indicated that the level of results based management in their organizations was low, 35.7% indicated it was medium while only 5.1% indicated that it was high. This shows a cause for concern about the leadership and supervisory practices of managers in Government Departments.

b) Individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring of employees

The respondents were required to indicate the extent of individual consideration, coaching and mentoring by their supervisors. Individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring was measured using 12 items in the questionnaire that focused on addressing specific employee task performance, coaching and mentoring of the employees. The respondents rated the 12 items on a five point rating scale of: strongly agree (5); agree (4); not sure (3); disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). The responses for each respondent were computed to obtain an individualized consideration-coaching-and mentoring-score which was expressed as a percentage. A high score indicated a high level of individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring in the organization while a low score indicated a low level of individualized consideration coaching and mentoring. Table 3 shows the benchmarks that were used for

12 | P a g e

interpretation of the individualized consideration coaching and mentoring score:

Table 3: Benchmarks for interpretation of individualized consideration coaching and mentoring score

Score

range

Interpretation

75-100 High level of individualized

consideration coaching and

mentoring

50-74 Medium level of individualized

consideration coaching and

mentoring

>50 Low level of individualized

consideration coaching and

mentoring

The data that was obtained was used to compute the mean individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring score which had a mean of 39.8, standard error of 1.6 and standard deviation 0f 15.3 at N= 96. These results show that the mean individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring in the Government Departments was low based on the standards of interpretation that were set in this study.

Table 4 Relationship between individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring of employees and results based management in government departments

Model

Un-standardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t

Sig. R2

B SE Beta

(Constant) 40.123 4.153 9.662 0.000 0.04

Individualized, coaching and mentoring score

0.209 0.097 0.226 2.156 0.034

The results in Table 4 show that individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring score was a statistically significant predictor of the results based management score at t=2.156, p> 0.05. This implies that where supervisors focus on individuals under their charge while coaching and mentoring them, there is a higher chance of results based management in the organization. However, the model fit was weak at R2 = 0.04 which implies that focusing on individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring can only contribute up to 4% of the extent of results based management in the Government Departments. These results show the need to identify the specific, unique needs of followers to ensure they are included in the transformation process of the organization (Simic, 1998, p. 52). People are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge (Shin & Zhou, 2003, p. 704) and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Chekwa, 2001, p. 5; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3).

13 | P a g e

b) Effect of defining employee performance expectations on Results Based Management

Employee Performance Expectations

The respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they are made to understand their performance expectations by their supervisors. Employee performance expectations was measured using 8 items that focused on understanding of organization objectives, targets for employees, performance appraisal, monitoring of performance, use of performance information for corrective measures and training of employees to enable them meet objectives and targets. The respondents rated the 8 items on a five point rating scale of: strongly agree (5); agree (4); not sure (3); disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). The responses for each respondent were computed to obtain an employee performance expectations score which was expressed as a percentage. A high score indicated a high understanding of performance expectations by employees in the organization while a low score indicated a low level of understanding of performance expectations by employees in the organization. Table 5shows the benchmarks that were used for interpretation of the understanding of performance expectation by employees score:

Table 5: Benchmarks for interpretation of employee understanding of performance expectation score

Score

range

Interpretation

75-100 High level of employee

understanding of performance

expectation

50-74 Medium level of employee

understanding of performance

expectation

>50 Low level of employee

understanding of performance

expectation

The results showed that the mean employee performance expectation score in the Government Departments was 42.0%, with a standard error of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 14.9 with N= 104. These results show , the level of understanding of performance expectation by employees in the Government Departments that were the focus of this study was low. Using information from individual respondents, the level of understanding of performance expectation by employees was computed based on the benchmarks that were set in this study. Those employees with a high level of understanding of performance expectations were 3.8%, those with a medium level of understanding of the performance expectations were 19.2% and those with a low level of understanding of the performance expectations were 76.9%.

Table 6: Regression results showing the relationship between employee understanding of performance expectations and results based management in government departments

Model

Un-standardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

R2

B SE Beta

(Constant) 30.048 4.022 7.470 0.000

0.171

Employee performance expectation score

0.406 0.089 0.423 4.553 0.000

The results in Table 6 showed that employee understanding of performance expectations score was a statistically significant predictor of the results based management score at t=4.553, p=0.001. This implies that where supervisors endeavour to make employee understand their performance expectation, there is higher chance of results based

14 | P a g e

management practices in the organization. The model fit was moderately strong at R2 = 0.171 which implies that focusing on employee understanding of performance expectations can contribute up to 17.1% of the extent of results based management in the Government Departments.

c. Effect of employee participation in decision making on Results Based Management

Employee participation in decision making

The respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they are involved in decision making in their organizations. Employee participation in decision making was measured using 8 and the respondents rated the 8 items on a five point rating scale of: strongly agree (5); agree (4); not sure (3); disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). The responses for each respondent were computed to obtain an employee participation in decision making score. A high score indicated high participation in decision making while a low score indicated low participation in decision making in the organization. Table 7 shows the benchmarks that were used for interpretation of the employee participation in decision making score:

Table 7: Benchmarks for interpretation of employee participation in decision making score

Score

range

Interpretation

75-100 High level of employee

participation in decision making

50-74 Medium level of employee

participation in decision making

>50 Low level of employee

participation in decision making

The data that was obtained was used to compute the mean employee participation in decision making showed that the mean employee participation in decision making score in the Government Departments was 49.9% with a standard error of 1.8 and standard deviation of 18.3 with N= 101. Based on the benchmarks of interpretation that were set in this study, the level of employee participation in decision making was in the Government Departments that were the focus of this study was low. Using information from individual respondents, the level of employee participation in decision making was computed based on the benchmarks that were set in this study. The results showed that 11.9% of the employees felt that they participated in decision making, while 29.7 % felt involvement was moderate and 58.4% felt that their involvement was low.

Table 8: Regression Results showing the relationship between employee participation in decision making and results based management in government departments

Model

Un-standardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t

Sig.

R2

B SE Beta

(Constant) 35.663 4.064 8.775 0.000

0.097

Employee participation in decision making score

0.254 0.077 0.326 3.294 0.001

The results in Table 8 show that employee understanding of performance expectations score was a statistically significant predictor of the results based management score at t=3.294, p=0.001. This implies that where supervisors involve employees in decision making, there is higher chance of results based management practices in the organization. The model fit was moderately strong at R2 = 0.097 which implies that focusing on employee participation in

15 | P a g e

decision making can contribute up to 9.7% of the extent of results based management in the Government Departments.

d. Effect of providing employees with intellectual stimulation on Results Based Management

The data that was obtained was used to

compute the mean employee intellectual

stimulation score and the results are

presented in Table 4.22.

Table 9: Employee intellectual stimulation score

N Mean SE SD

101 51.4 1.8 17.9

The results in Table 9 shows that the mean employee intellectual stimulation score in the Government Departments was 51.4% and based on the benchmarks of interpretation that were set in this study, the level of employee intellectual stimulation in the Government Departments was ‘medium’. Using information from individual respondents, the level of employee intellectual stimulation was computed based on the benchmarks that were set in this study and the results are presented in Table 10

Table 10: Level of employee intellectual stimulation in government departments

Level f %

High 12 11.9

Medium 31 30.7

Low 58 57.4

Total 101 100.0

The results in Table 10 show that more than half of the respondents (57.4%) indicated that their level of intellectual stimulation was low,

30.7% indicated it was medium while only 11.9% indicated that it was high.

Table 11:Regression Results showing the relationship between employee intellectual stimulation and results based management in government departments

Model

Un-standardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t

Sig.

R2

B SE Beta

(Constant) 35.663 4.064 8.775 0.000

0.097

Employee participation in decision making score

0.254 0.077 0.326 3.294 0.001

(Source: Author, 2012)

The results in Table 11 show that employee intellectual stimulation score was a statistically significant predictor of the results based management score at t=3.501, p=0.001. This implies that where supervisors involved provide opportunities for employees intellectual stimulation, there is corresponding higher chance of results based management practices in the organization. The model fit was moderately strong at R2 = 0.109 which implies that focusing on employee intellectual stimulation can contribute up to 10.9% of the extent of results based management in the Government Departments.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

Transformational leadership is a process in which the leaders take actions to try to increase their followers’ awareness of what is right and important. This process is associated with motivating followers to perform “beyond

16 | P a g e

expectation” and encouraging followers to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group or organisation. The results of the study show a cause for concern about the leadership and supervisory practices of managers in Government Departments because majority of the respondents indicated that the level of results based management in their organizations was low. The findings of the study show that individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring; aspects of transformational leadership, in the Government Departments were low, which led to poor results based management in the organizations. This corroborates findings by Shin & Zhou, 2003; and Chekwa, 2001, p. 5; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3, that Individualized consideration, coaching and mentoring of employees involves responding to the specific, unique needs of followers to ensure they are included in the transformation process of the organization. People are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved. This finding demonstrates the need for more focus on the leadership practices of managers in Government Departments. The results of this study show that employee understanding of performance expectation in the Government Departments was also low; leading to poor results based management practices in the organizations. This agreed with Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000 when they contended that leaders who demonstrated high performance expectations of their employees contributed positively to transformational leadership. Employee Performance Management involves defining performance standards, and documenting, evaluating and discussing performance with each employee; by setting performance expectations first, the employee knows what is expected and the supervisor has specific

performance criteria to measure quality and productivity. It also provides a fair basis for appraising performance. Employees in government departments did not have well defined roles laying out their responsibilities, which made it difficult for them to know what was to be achieved. The results of the study show that employee participation in decision making in the Government Departments was medium. This agrees with findings by Leithwood & Jantzi (2000) that developing structures to foster participation in decision making is the process whereby employees are involved in decision making processes, rather than simply acting on orders. Individual employees are encouraged to take responsibility for quality in terms of carrying out activities, which meet the requirements of their customers. This way, the employees feel part and parcel of the organization, thereby leading to better performance thereby transforming the organization. At medium level, it is an indication that the employees are less involved in deciding what they do, and hence do not fully own the work, leading to poor performance. The results of the study showed that employee intellectual stimulation in the Government Departments was medium, indicating that it is lacking in adequate measures to influence government employees, making transformational leadership and hence results based management in the organizations difficult to achieve. This agrees with Leithwood’s model, 2000 which assumed that the leader shares leadership with the led and the model is grounded not on controlling or coordinating others, but instead on providing individual support, intellectual stimulation, and personal vision, realizing that the organizational goals are apt to be met when members of the organization work together to make it happen. This consisted of reinvestigating basic assumptions and questioning them, looking

17 | P a g e

for various perspectives when resolving the problems, forcing others to look at the problem from different views, encouraging nontraditional thinking to address traditional problems and encouraging revising the ideas that are not questioned yet. Recommendations Transformational leadership is solely lacking in Kenya’s civil service and it is recommended that the government puts in place measures to ensure the leaders appointed to head government departments are transformational to ensure achievement of results based management for provision of better services to the citizens. This will also improve accountability for resources and restore citizens’ faith in the management of government affairs. In view of the willingness of the Government to undertake Public Service Transformation, the future of Public Service Transformation will have to depend on a new generation of Public sector leaders. These new leaders must have a clear understanding of human development, and make commitments to uplifting the livelihoods of the citizenry. This in essence is a call for leadership training. The chances for transforming the public service will be greatly enhanced if concerted efforts to train leadership were made to go hand in hand with institutional reforms. Since poor public service leadership has been one of the causes of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, it is important that those to be entrusted with the responsibilities of transforming the public service must be trained in the art and science of transformative leadership. While many public sector leaders claim various educational backgrounds, few have undergone formal transformative leadership training. The future of Public Service Transformation will depend on Public Sector leadership with proper training, integrity, honesty and high moral character as well as articulating desired futures that are idealized visions quite different from current conditions. Such

leaders should also able to convey their vision of a desired future stated effectively enough to generate commitment to their vision in others. The research study confined itself to government ministries only. It is recommended that similar study be conducted in the government parastatals as well.

18 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Auditor General of Canada (2000) and OECD-DAC (2006).

Adèr, H. J., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Hand, D. J. (2008). Advising on research methods: A consultant's companion. Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing. Avolio, Bruce J. (1997). “The Great Leadership Migration to a Full Range Leadership

Development System.” In Kellogg Leadership Studies Project, Transformational Leadership Working Papers, The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership,

Barbuto, J.E. (Jnr) (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: a test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.

Barnett, A. (2003, November). The impact of transformational leadership style of the school principal on school learning environments and selected teacher outcomes: a preliminary report. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand.

Barnett, K., McCormick, J. & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), pp. 24-46.

Bass, Bernard (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (3), Winter, 1990, 19-31.

Bass, B.M. (1990a). Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 13, pp. 26-40. Bass, B.M. (1997). The ethics of transformational leadership. KLSP: Transformational

Leadership, Working Papers. Retrieved November 10th 2010, from http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Individual, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp. 207-218.

Bass, B.M.(2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 4th edition Free Press

Bennis, W. (2001). Leading in unnerving times. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42, 97–102.

Botcheva L, White CR, Huffman LC, ‘Learning Culture and Outcomes Measurement Practices in Community Agencies’, American Journal of Evaluation, 2002, 23(4): 421-434

Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), pp. 901-910.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Bryant, S.E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 32-44.

19 | P a g e

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.

Carl-Erik Särndal; Bengt Swensson; Jan Wretman (2003). Model assisted survey sampling. Springer. pp. 9–12. ISBN 9780387406206. Retrieved 2 January 2011.

Carlson, D.S. & Perrewe, P.L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), pp. 829-839. Cashin, J., Crewe, P., Desai, J., Desrosiers, L., Prince, J., Shallow, G. & Slaney, S. (2000).

Transformational Leadership. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.mun.ca/educ/ed4361/virtual_academy/campus_a/aleaders.html

Chekwa, E. (2001, July 12-14). Searching for African American transformational leaders. Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences 4th International Conference, Quebec City, Canada.

Clutterbuck, D & Megginson, D, (1999). Mentoring Executives and Directors ..

Conger, J.A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 145-170.

Cox, Michael & Rock, E. Michael (1997): The 7 pillars of Visionary leadership: Aligning your organization for enduring success. Toronto: Dryden (Harcourt Brace &Co. Canada

Cox, P.L. (2001). Transformational leadership: a success story at Cornell University. Proceedings of the ATEM/aappa 2001 conference. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from http://www.anu.edu.au/facilities/atemaappaa/full_papers/Coxkeynote.html

Crawford, C.B., Gould, L.V., & Scott, R.F. (2003). Transformational leader as champion and techie: implications for leadership educators. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), pp. 1-12.

Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational climate, attrition, and performance. In K.E. Clark,

M. B. Clark, & D. R. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: The Center for Creative Leadership.

Den Hartog, N.N, Van Muijen, J. &Koopman, P. (1994,July). Transactional Vs. Transformational leadership. Papers presented at the meeting of the International Congress of the Applied Psychology Madrid, Spain.

Drucker, P.F.( 1955). The Practice of Management (1954) Harper Collins books.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Epitropaki,O. (Undated) . What is transformational leadership? Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, England.

Feinberg, B.J., Ostroff, & Burke, W.W. (2005). The role of within-group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 471-488.

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 2nd Edition. New York. NY: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Gellis, Z.D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformation

Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 397–420.

Flint, M. (2002).Easier Said Than Done: A Review of Results-Based Management in

20 | P a g e

Multilateral Development Institutions, UK Department for International Development (DFID), London, United Kingdom, 2002, p 50.

Gronn, P. (1996). From transactions to transformations: a new world order in the study of leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 24(1), pp. 7-30.

Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational leadership: the transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.

Hesselbein, Frances, and Paul M. Cohen. (1999). Leader to Leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hopkins, K.D. (1998). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation. 8th Edition. Needham Heights. MA. Allyn and Bacon.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 891–902.

Hoyt, C.L. & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34(6), pp. 678-715.

Israel, M. & Hay. I. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists: between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London: Sage.

Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89/5, pp. 755-768.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.

Kelly, M.L. (2003, January 1). Academic advisers as transformational leaders. The Mentor. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm

Kotter, John P. John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), p. 112.

Lussier, R.N. & Achua, C.F. (2004). Leadership: theory, application, skill development (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson-West.

Mugenda Olive M. And A.G. Mugenda (1999), Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, African Centre Of Technology Studies, Nairobi. Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak, London, New

Delhe, Sage Publications, Inc. Northouse, Peter G. (2001). Leadership Theory and Practice, second edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Parsloe Eric ( 1999). The Manager as a Coach and Mentor .

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effect of leader contingent and non contingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810–821.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward behavior and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21–63.

Results-based Management in Canadian International Development Agency ( 1999). CIDA,

Republic of Kenya office of the president public service reform and development secretariat donor/GOK consultative meeting Report April, 2005.

21 | P a g e

Rice, J.B. (1993). Transactional and transformational leadership: an analysis of male and female leadership styles in Delaware public schools. Abstract of EdD dissertation completed at Widener University, Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://muse.widener.edu/~egr0001/Dissertations/RiceW.html

Sanders, J.E.(3rd), Hopkins, W.E. & Geroy, G.D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 21-31.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 384–409.

Sheppard, P. (2002). Leading the turnaround: Lou Gerstner of IBM. Wharton Leadership Digest. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/digest/02-03.shtml.

Shin, S.J. & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 703-714.

Simic, I. (1998). Transformational leadership - the key to successful management of transformational organizational changes. Facta Universitas, 1(6), pp. 49-55.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). The impact of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a GDSS environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2004). Transformational Leadership. Retrieved August 3, 2006 from http://www.sedl.org/change/leadership/history.html

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership – a difference in leader focus. Servant Leadership Roundtable – October 2003. Retrieved January 20th 2011 from http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003servantleadershiproundtable/stone.pdf

Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The Transformational Leader. New York, NY: John Wiley.

UNESCO Results-Based Programming, Management and Monitoring (2008). Guiding Principles, UNESCO Paris, Bureau of Strategic Planning, January 2008.

United Nations Development Programme-Kenya( 2008). Country Programme Action Plan of the Government of Kenya 2007/2008 Harmonized Annual Work Plan

United Nations Development Programme Country Programme Action Plan of the Government of Kenya ( 2006). Annual Work Plan

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177–186.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 381–394.

Yammarino, F.J. & Bass B.M (1990). Long term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. West Orange, N.J.

Yates, M. (2002) Leader Values. Retrieved February 14th 2011 from http://www.leader-values.com/historicalleaders/.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.